If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

I forgot to add 'wealth'. Would you also give your definition of wealth? Earlier you said that you preferred the word currency to money. Is there a different meaning to you? I use the term, when I'm being specific, fiduciary media', meaning something of trust used for exchange. To me, the word 'currency' is typically in use in currency exchange (market) operation. The word 'money' implies something of real value which can be used for exchange, storage, or investment.

I appreciate your responses but right now this is not a discussion. I'm asking questions and you're are thoughtfully answering them. I'll be happy to discuss after I understand where you're coming from. It's interesting to me that when you talk or explain freely you sound to me quite different from your direct answers to questions. However, real differences that exist between us in the interpretation of history become irrelevant in the agreement of the existing problem and conditions. Those differences may become important in descriptions of the solution, or may not.

I also usually do not fight. I will argue or debate when the other person refrains from emotional or ideological statements. For instance, you edited out the sentences in an earlier post saying that the politicians 'mean well', in a way I though probably means some politicians and not others who by inference probably did not 'mean well'. Of course that may be wrong, but I took it as an emotional or ideological statement and I appreciate the removal.

Yesterday I was unable to access this site 3 times. Either that is an unusually heavy load or the site is under attack.

Comment

"This collusion that we've seen has been more blatant, but can you really say it's far worse now than before? I'm not well read enough to know that answer. What about the first half of the 1900's or the whole 1800's? In a stable system with checks and balances and humans, I would naturally predict periods with greater collusion followed by corrections to the system. The ultimate question is if our system has lost that stability, and speaking on those terms, I understand how difficult that will be to answer. Complex systems are deceptive. But what are you predicting again?"

The amount of averse collusion has had cycles of up and down throughout our history....by this I mean the amount to which political levers were kept far away from actual common people.

After the civil war and into the guilded age of Rockefellar, Vanderbilt, Carnagie, things were MUCH worse than they are right now....it is an often forgotten part of history that these so called "Titans of Industry" ran things with no regard whatsoever for their workers. Lookup any statistics on what the injury and fatality rate was in an average Carnagie factory, like the main one he bought up in Pittsburgh as his flagship, and it will blow your mind. It was more dangerous to be on his factory floor that to be enlisted in WWI, I have heard....child labor, total neglect of worker safety, and low wages to the point of destitution were common.

Many of the presidents of the era were hand-picked by the house of Morgan and these "Titans", all up to the election of Teddy Roosevelt....this led to a small progressive change from the "Bull Moose" party, which saw a lot of changes take place for average people and the democratic process....over time though, the ultra-wealthy got more power again. Harding, Hoover, Coolidge, all were picked by the east coast elites of the Republican machine back then.

The collusion with business is not new, and it has been worse in our history.

The difference now is the introduction of international, faceless corporations that can operate anywhere, paying taxes nowhere, and can infiltrate most any weak government (like ours) to get laws that protect them....when collusion happens at THIS level, it has a unique impact that we are only slowly learning the implications of. High unemployment, economic deadzones, all of it is likely the new normal. We have allowed for it to be so.

As for predictions.....

I am not a "collapse" person. I write on a forum of preppers, and I am very used to defending my position in minute detail....the bad part is, I think that MY prediction is in fact worse than a quick collapse, giving way to necessary change.

The main part of contention is that others act as if, once a certain thing happens, the wealthy and powerful will just take their ball and go home, so to speak. They will retreat, and let everyone else duke it out....this is the "collapse" model.

I don't think that history tells us that this is the case....in places where things went south, such as Rome, the Netherlands much later, Mexico, Easter Island, the most shocking part about studying them is that the powerful kept up the charade, kept on making money or acquiring power, far past societal collapse. They had to be physically stopped....they did what Mark Twain said of corrupted power, that it "keeps on spinning its wheels like a machine that has slipped its gears, accomplishing nothing".

In our case, I believe this means that we will, like a frog that is slowly cooked in water rather than tossed into a boil only to hop out, accept greater and greater erosion of our standard of living and freedom....it will all happen slow enough to be unmistakable, but not so fast as to alarm people. This is because all of the powerful have a great incentive to maintain it this way. They fear, for their own self-interest, anything that would be a shock to the system.

If gas doubles in a week, you'd get riots. Double it over a few years though, you get crickets like now....multiply that across the board, for food, college, media, and especially democratic processes, you get my version of the future.

At some point this will all be very clear. One day, one person at a time, people will wake up one morning and realize that their kids don't have it near as well as they did. That they are in fact quite poor compared to what they must spend. That they have no power at all to actually change it....this is happening already. Wait 20 years.

My prediction is that we will end up with a small percentage of the people, perhaps 15%, that maintain a BETTER standard of living than we have now. They will all have nice homes, go on awesome vacations, have a great life....the other 85% will be in various stratifications of destitute to mildly poor. They will be giving up just about all of their money just to have gas to get to work, food on the table, and a roof over their heads. Again, this is all already happening. We are only talking about an increase in the trend, ad infinum.....it does not take a wordsmith to call this its true, and wished for, name: economic slavery. A very large part of the population are either already there, or have dropped out of it to their own benefit.

Comment

Interesting anecdote on past power structures surviving political collapse.

I agree, the boiling frog model appears to be our society's path.

Questions

What about growth of new technologies? Nuclear, solar? Maybe something else subatomic if we figure out what's going on in there.

Do you agree that total personal liberty, especially to people unused to such freedom (like the US Frontier in 1800s), lead to the Weitko mindset?

I was also saying that we are losing our spot at the table. I said that citizens gave up their seats at the table, and you said that powerful people took those seats away. How important are each of those factors?

Comment

I found this information of interest:
1. The status of the State of California changed from an unorganized, bounded territory to an corporation in 1850.
The Status of the State of Vermont changed from a (I'm not sure here - Republic) to an corporation in 1791.
Ref: Statehood Dates

2. The 'United States of America', located in D.C. is a corporation. The 'United States' is a Republic and not a Corporation. Ref: United States of America, Incorporated. This is a legal argument that has been going on for some time, I've read of it before but don't keep up with it. It seems an issue no one pays any attention to. I was looking for an incorporation date of the USA.

3. The State of California has 2.4 million employees. That's a huge Corporation anyway you count it and includes buildings of employees located in foreign countries. I couldn't find the total number of employees of the State of Vermont, but the executive branch alone has over 8000.

Comment

Colluding is human nature. This collusion that we've seen has been more blatant, but can you really say it's far worse now than before? I'm not well read enough to know that answer. What about the first half of the 1900's or the whole 1800's? In a stable system with checks and balances and humans, I would naturally predict periods with greater collusion followed by corrections to the system. The ultimate question is if our system has lost that stability, and speaking on those terms, I understand how difficult that will be to answer. Complex systems are deceptive. But what are you predicting again? I thought you predicted a collapse of society, meaning you think the system has lost stability. Why won't there be a political uprising that spurns positive change, that saves our society?

Wilton, call it collusion, conspiracy, bribery, whatever. I do have an opinion and some experience of this. I've served as an appointed official of some power in a very small Gov't, a large Gov't, and a monster Gov't. In the very small gov't our commission of 5, in which I served without pay, had no staff at all, that is no bureaucrat ‎'serving' us. The commission members studied legal books provided at cost by the State and we studied the laws pertaining to us. Our very small city is an 'at law' city meaning it is incorporated under the laws of the State. We then studied the pertinent laws of other cities, then we wrote the laws, rules and regulations for our own city. None of us were lawyers but we did hire one at the end of the process to review our work and warn of any glaring mistakes.

During these years of unpaid service to out city, there was no collusion, conspiracy, bribery at all, and no pressure directly applied. Each of the 5 of us was quite knowledgeable about the activities of our 5 Council members and all other commission members. We held bi-monthly public meetings in which all our activities were carried out publically.

From there I was appointed to the same position for our County, one of the largest in the nation, bigger that 5 of the smallest States put together, and very varied in geography, topology, ecology and population density, with a few large cities and many small. Now the 5 member commission had a very large staff of about 50 direct and another 250 indirect reporting bureaucrats. And here the problems seriously began. I was told (instructed) that those who make larger donations or gifts were not at all buying votes but were only buying the opportunity to talk to me, once, on an issue. During this period of time our County was the fastest developing and growing in the nation. What I didn't immediately realize was that these 'donators' could also talk to staff almost continually during their application. Not only talk with them, but most helpful to them was the donators ability to provide staff with much needed information, data, whatever they needed really. And staff did need this help because no matter how many employees there are, the rules and regulation of the State and Feds are much greater, creating a much greater load of work then they must accomplish. And I found them to be amazing hard working and efficient and capable. But I also realized over time that their ability to do their work depended upon working closely with the applicants and thus being very influenced by them and by the state laws, rules, and regulations. By the time a final report got to us with it's recommendations it was usually completely biased in favor of the business applicant, who then appeared before us, very polished and prepared, with attorneys, U. professors, etc. in to answer any questions we might have. If the applicant was in individual citizen the staff report was just as complete but the issue was always a request for an exception to some law or rule and easily decided. And the citizen was not a professional, not prepared, without information, and highly emotional after having to pay to go through this process.
We members of the commission had very little knowledge of what the 5 supervisors were doing and usually only some knowledge of what our own supervisor was doing. But I did know that at least 2 of the Supervisors were definitely receiving large bribes happily. And I kept a list of the bribes that were offered to me, which were all declined. Ah, but I could have made a lot of money. I was also threatened several times, myself and my family. Two or three large men would appear at my car in the dark parking lot at 11pm at night as I was leaving a commission meeting and strongly show and voice their displeasure at my actions and votes.

From there I was appointed to the same position for our State. Can you imagine how these practices multiplied. The situation was impossible. None of us had any idea of what was going on either above or below us. We didn't even know personally more than one handful of our staff-bureaucrats personally. It was insane. At one point I represented our Governor in a bi-State compact with Arizona. Let me assure you I had no idea what was going on.

I conclude this story with the very decided opinion that only very small Gov't is even capable of being honest and truly representing the people of it's jurisdiction. So small that the representatives have no staff, maybe only 1 clerical aid. The size of Gov't does not mean the number of representatives but the number of bureaucrats who are there for a lifetime career, not a short period of service, and who each know all the players in their very small responsible area and are beholden to no one else. These are also the people that become friendly or not with various members of the media and with bureaucrats of others small areas of responsibility all over the rest of the Gov't jurisdiction. Whether or not the ruling elected politician buys into these collusions, schemes, ideas, points of view, whatever, in the end becomes almost irrelevant. So that, unless they get caught by some opponents bureaucrats, bribery of and by the elected person really has little effect of it's own.

I don't really think that illegal collusion is human nature but professional collusion certainly is and is called networking and is encouraged in gov't as elsewhere. It's clear that the larger a bureaucracy the multiply larger networks that can and will be established. Therefore I conclude that only very small Gov't can be useful to us or good for us.

Comment

I agree with Laz's description of our continuing decline. We are following the historic examples well. Nothing can save us. We seem to be following Rome's model very well and will soon elect a dictator, like Julius Cesar or like Hitler.

What about growth of new technologies? Beyond combustion of fossil fuels to produce energy. Not just using solar/wind/water/nuclear; something *new*.I don't see technologies as an effective variable in the process of freedom vs enslavement. Such technologies may certainly add to the GDP but they don't seem to effect the freedom or liberty of the citizens.

Aside from technological innovation, can anything save us from the boiling frog model?No, not unless the richer 10% decide to act against the Fed. Gov't, which seems very unlikely. Because the poorer 90% talk, complain, and do nothing.

Do you agree that total personal liberty, especially to people unused to such freedom (like the US Frontier in 1800s), lead to the Weitko mindset?I suppose that would depend upon whether the collapse of personal freedom happened overnight or over a long period of time.

Suppose first that it happened overnight as in a successful revolution. All Gov't at every level just disappears and no Gov't replaces it. Then there would be a long period of change and adaptation. At first there would be gangs of thugs roaming about and trying to destroy and steal everything. Where he people are weak they succeed. Where the people are strong. cooperative and well armed the thugs die. Given enough time I think the liberty similar to the old-west would be reestablished in most areas whereas the unpopulated open areas in between may have gangs of robbers, thugs and highway men. Trucks and trains would be accompanied by armed guards. etc. Rather like the Middle Ages. Again in more time the thugs disappear.

Suppose second that this freedom grew slowly over a period of many years. Then large companies and strong men would have time to follow the paths to Weitko unless the shrinking Gov't continually adapted by spending more and more money on police, fire, courts and justice, and other protective services as they shrank and at the same time spending less and less on entitlement services and other benefits. Do you see this happening?

I was also saying that we are losing our spot at the table. I said that citizens gave up their seats at the table, and you said that powerful people took those seats away. How important are each of those factors?

Of course physically we've never had a spot at the table. The degree of representation we each have seems to depend upon the number of people each elected person represents. Originally the number was comparatively small. Today it's so large, with so many varied opinions, coming from people who are unwilling to take any action at all, that any single person's influence on the elected representative is less than negligible. And mathematically one vote had no effect or representation at all at any Federal level.

So again, to reduce the number of people represented by one elected person, you have to either increase the number of representatives or reduce the total population or reduce the population in each census area.

Comment

I don't really think that illegal collusion is human nature but professional collusion certainly is and is called networking and is encouraged in gov't as elsewhere. It's clear that the larger a bureaucracy the multiply larger networks that can and will be established. Therefore I conclude that only very small Gov't can be useful to us or good for us.

I think it's human nature to compete by any means necessary. Generally, following rules and limiting one's self makes things easier in life, but sometimes it doesn't for some people.

Sometimes, perfection is the enemy of good. Would you rather have a more perfect government in which small little communities live in relative war against one another and do not maintain a much higher standard of living than homesteaders or hunter-gatherers, or would you rather have an imperfect government in which bureaucracy bloats, technology multiplies, some people get money for less noble deeds, and neighboring communities live in relative peace with one another (although intra-community violence rises to an extent, depending upon the community)?

That may appear like a false dilemma, but I don't see any other way than to have a large-scale government if we are to continue this modern civilization. Throughout history, I've never seen tons of small communities getting along without an umbrella government.

Comment

I agree with Laz's description of our continuing decline. We are following the historic examples well. Nothing can save us. We seem to be following Rome's model very well and will soon elect a dictator, like Julius Cesar or like Hitler.

I hope not, but I'm not brushed up on my Roman history. Were they in denial that they'd ever elect such a dictator? Because in America, we have a pretty strong ethos against it.

Of course physically we've never had a spot at the table. The degree of representation we each have seems to depend upon the number of people each elected person represents. Originally the number was comparatively small. Today it's so large, with so many varied opinions, coming from people who are unwilling to take any action at all, that any single person's influence on the elected representative is less than negligible. And mathematically one vote had no effect or representation at all at any Federal level.

So again, to reduce the number of people represented by one elected person, you have to either increase the number of representatives or reduce the total population or reduce the population in each census area.

The trends you state are true, but I don't automatically think they're unacceptable. See my previous post on "perfection" for why.

I don't see technologies as an effective variable in the process of freedom vs enslavement. Such technologies may certainly add to the GDP but they don't seem to effect the freedom or liberty of the citizens.

Well, I would like to see a lot more research done in nuclear energy. Solar, wind, hydroelectric, and combustible biomass/petro are not the answers. Nuclear has a far, far greater energy density. It doesn't put carbon in the air. It doesn't waste the exponentially greater amount of resources that solar does. At the current level of technology, a nuclear powered world would need an extremely large amount of powerplants. However, what if we advanced that technology? It seems to be the one tech that no one wants to touch due to bad publicity from Chernobyl and Japan, but it's actually a pretty safe solution.

As for anyone wondering about subparticle physics and energy creation (rather than subatomic, as with nuclear fission or fusion), initial findings show that less overall energy is available there. Even if we don't have the grand unified field theory, we know quite a damn lot about this subject, so that's worrying. This is one of my areas of interest, so I will let you know if I find more.

I suppose that would depend upon whether the complete personal freedom happened overnight or over a long period of time.

Suppose first that it happened overnight as in a successful revolution. All Gov't at every level just disappears and no Gov't replaces it. Then there would be a long period of change and adaptation. At first there would be gangs of thugs roaming about and trying to destroy and steal everything. Where he people are weak they succeed. Where the people are strong. cooperative and well armed the thugs die. Given enough time I think the liberty similar to the old-west would be reestablished in most areas whereas the unpopulated open areas in between may have gangs of robbers, thugs and highway men. Trucks and trains would be accompanied by armed guards. etc. Rather like the Middle Ages. Again in more time the thugs disappear.

Suppose second that this freedom grew slowly over a period of many years. Then large companies and strong men would have time to follow the paths to Weitko unless the shrinking Gov't continually adapted by spending more and more money on police, fire, courts and justice, and other protective services as they shrank and at the same time spending less and less on entitlement services and other benefits. Do you see this happening?

I think you missed my point. I just meant the spirit of Weitko, which was seen in individuals, not large companies or gangs, during the 1800's. Remember the American Bison? Remember bear traps, elephant poaching (still happening: 81 Elephants Killed With Cyanide in Zimbabwe, Animals Die After Drinking Water Poisoned By Poachers), and extinct old-growth forests? Ok, the last one could be considered company based. However, I'm pointing out that Weitko has been a part of nearly every over-eager, ignorant, non-biologist since our country was founded upon personal property rights. It is not the right of person to commit such acts. It is the right of all to preserve such resources if possible/necessary.

***Lazarus***, are you reading? This is an example of a right held by the collective, to prevent abuse by the individual or smaller collective.

Comment

I think you missed my point. I just meant the spirit of Weitko, which was seen in individuals, not large companies or gangs, during the 1800's. Remember the American Bison? Remember bear traps, elephant poaching (still happening: 81 Elephants Killed With Cyanide in Zimbabwe, Animals Die After Drinking Water Poisoned By Poachers), and extinct old-growth forests? Ok, the last one could be considered company based. However, I'm pointing out that Weitko has been a part of nearly every over-eager, ignorant, non-biologist since our country was founded upon personal property rights. It is not the right of person to commit such acts. It is the right of all to preserve such resources if possible/necessary.

Those are all examples of the tragedy of the commons. If no one owns the animals or trees, no one has an incentive to take care of them.

In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

This message has been intercepted by the NSA, the only branch of government that listens.

Comment

Sometimes, perfection is the enemy of good. Would you rather have a more perfect government in which small little communities live in relative war against one another and do not maintain a much higher standard of living than homesteaders or hunter-gatherers, or would you rather have an imperfect government in which bureaucracy bloats, technology multiplies, some people get money for less noble deeds, and neighboring communities live in relative peace with one another (although intra-community violence rises to an extent, depending upon the community)?

That may appear like a false dilemma, but I don't see any other way than to have a large-scale government if we are to continue this modern civilization. Throughout history, I've never seen tons of small communities getting along without an umbrella government.

I do see it a different way. From my view you seem to continually conflate small with backwards and poor. Laz and I were addressing the question of freedom and liberty. You seem to want to change that question to technical progress, large, and rich. I don't see those 3 things as related.

For example, my first job, in the 50's, was in The Advanced Theoretical Research Lab of a private company. In those earlier years research was primarily done by private companies many of which had research labs. More recently research of all kinds has been not only taken over by Gov't, but Gov't has legally preempted the rights of private companies from doing many kinds of research, thus almost completely reducing competition, and the economic decline since that time has also ended such competition.

The first big Gov't research project was in the 1930's and 40's with the Atomic bomb. The first big building project was likewise done prior to the A-bomb with the Hoover Dam.